in the Interest of H.A.B. and J.B., Children

Opinion filed December 8, 2016 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-16-00249-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF H.A.B. AND J.B., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C46657 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents of H.A.B. and J.B. The children’s father filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. The father’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and presents no arguable issues of merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., No. 15-0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a motion to file in this court to obtain access to the appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. We note that Appellant did not file the pro se motion for access to the appellate record. Nor did he file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. However, in light of P.M., we deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 2016 WL 1274748, at *3. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM December 8, 2016 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 2